Jumping on a monster's back

[Quasqueton]

The PCs were fighting a Huge quadraped. The fighter/rogue wanted to run up and jump on its back. I picked up the mini, laid it down on its side to check the height on the battlegrid -- 10'. I said DC 40 (had a 20' running start). The fighter jumped, failed (nowhere near 40), and I said he was prone in the square beside the beastie. (The beast had already taken an AoO that round.)

So, did I do that right? And had the fighter made the jump, what should be the mechanics and benefits of staying and fighting it on its back? In this situation, the PC had a kukri in each hand.

Quasqueton

 

[heirodule]

Well you were making the assumption that he needed to clear the back with his feet, which since he was holding kukris in both hands, seems to be correct.

If he had tried to mount it more normally (say by grabing its hair and scrambling up) he would not have had to jump as high, and climb or grapple rules may have been more appropriate.

So far, mounting a bucking bronco is not modeled in the rules. It should be.

 

[Infiniti2000]

This is how I would run it, much of it being a houserule obviously

1. Provokes an AoO. The fighter is attempting to enter the creatures square.
2. DC 40 jump check sounds right, the AoO unless it hinders the fighter does not negate the move
3. Failed
3a. Stops in square just outside the monster's square (otherwise it's an illegal space, he essentially gets pushed back)
3b. Tumble check DC 15 + 40 - Jump Check rolled to not be prone
4. Succeeded
4a. Balance check each round to stay on, DC variable depending on actions, but I would initially give a bonus equal to Jump Check - 40. The DC might be something like 10 + Dex/Deflection/etc. bonuses of the monster.
4b. I would give the fighter a +1 on attacks for higher ground
4c. I would consider the fighter grappled (he's trying to stay on), but not the monster (though the monster has no benefits to hit him and would take grapple checks/penalties to attack).

How's that sound? It's a fun maneuver to watch, but ultimately foolhardy in D&D. The cinematic benefit of doing it is for what basically amounts to a called shot to the back of the neck or something, which is not possible anyway, so it really has little benefit. It also has problems in that there is no facing.

 

[Aeson]

I think you handled it well.

I would like to see more cinematic action in games. Was is discribed well?

 

[Quasqueton]

I would like to see more cinematic action in games. Was is discribed well?

Player: I run up, and I want to leap onto its back.

DM(me): Uh, OK, that'll be a Jump check. <picks up mini, measures height on battlegrid> It's ten feet high, so. . .<checks Jump chart on DM screen> wow, DC 40.

Player: <shrugs, rolls Jump check> Nope, didn't make it.

DM: You land here. [Thinking more on it now, I don't remember for sure if I had him end up prone or just standing. I remember thinking about him landing prone.]

Player: OK.

DM: You done?

Player: Yeah.

DM: OK, <moves on to next characters action>

Wasn't much reason to go into grand descriptions for this action.

Quasqueton

 

[Infiniti2000]

DM: You done?

Player: Yeah.

A jump is part of a move action. The player (assuming no other actions already taken that round and he moved at most his speed) should still have had a standard action remaining.

 

[cincinnati reds]

How's that sound? It's a fun maneuver to watch, but ultimately foolhardy in D&D. The cinematic benefit of doing it is for what basically amounts to a called shot to the back of the neck or something, which is not possible anyway, so it really has little benefit. It also has problems in that there is no facing.

I would give the character, if successful, flanking bonuses (+2) to hit the creature, as well as deny the creature the ability to use its DEX bonus to AC against the "mounted" combatant.

PC's Climb opposed by creature's Grapple every round if the creature is actively trying to "shake" its rider. That would be a Move-Equiv action.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I like the Climb vs. Grapple. I don't like the preference to rogues with the denied Dex bonus. You do not lose your Dex bonus in a grapple vs. creatures you grapple. And flanking with basically the ground makes no sense. The +1 for higher ground covers that aspect of it.

 

[dcollins]

The PCs were fighting a Huge quadraped. The fighter/rogue wanted to run up and jump on its back.

Yeah, this is a fairly common desire in fantasy combat that is not accounted for in the D&D rules. What I've decided to do is call this a grappling attack, where the large-size ridden beast takes no "in grapple" penalties for the person on their back. Not much advantage to doing such, but there it is.

 

[Quasqueton]

A jump is part of a move action. The player (assuming no other actions already taken that round and he moved at most his speed) should still have had a standard action remaining.

Yes, we know this. Perhaps he used his standard action to stand up from prone. Maybe that's why I think I remember he ended the round up, not prone. I wasn't taking notes for relating the action on a message board where other posters would read the tale as a literal description.

Quasqueton